Q11 - Inez: The book we are reading

[chike_eze]

Got down to A,B and E on this one. I eliminated (E) initially, the correct answer, because I read "book's title should not" as "the book should not..". Big mistake.

(B) is wrong because Antonio acknowledges a difference, albeit a very small difference. i.e., "2 facets of the same thing".

(A) is wrong because the title will still violate Inez's rule that "a title should summarize the whole book content"

(E) is correct because it advocates the inclusion of "energy" in the title because the former is a major subject discussed in the book. Note that this may not be sufficient to satisfy the rule, but it is required by the rule.

[wj097]

Wow...I think this question just opened up the hell gate....

Only reason I think (E) is an answer is b/c its the only one that cannot be proved WRONG, while it could either be wrong or right.

Stimulus only says that the book is mistitled since it represents 50%. I really don't think you can infer as in (E) that if the book doesn't represent the other 50% then the title should not mention all together. Maybe it is still better to mention title that represents 50% than just not mentioning at all.

I think more supported inference would be something like "Inez believes that the book should be called "The Nature of Matter and Energy"

Please please help...

[chike_eze]

Wow...I think this question just opened up the hell gate....

I think more supported inference would be something like "Inez believes that the book should be called "The Nature of Matter and Energy"

Please please help...

Interesting. When I attempted this question, I expected to find the title you referenced above. However, after reviewing the question again... we don't know that Inez would support a title that includes only matter and energy.

Why? Inez says that the title should summarize the content of the whole book. But we do not know the content of the whole book... we only know that "almost half" the book is devoted to energy. What if the rest of the book discusses not only matter, but also electricity or force or something else? Then wouldn't Inez want these concepts to be incorporated into the title as well?

Because this is an inference question, and we do not know the entire content of the book, we cannot infer that Inez believes the book should be named something specific. What we know is that the book discusses two concepts "energy" and "matter", therefore, Inez believes these two concepts should be incorporated into the title somehow.

(E) states Inez's expectation. Since the book discusses matter and energy, and the former is in the title, then the latter should also be in the title.

[ohthatpatrick]

Nice dissection of this one! I agree with almost all of the aforementioned thoughts.

Let me just emphasize that when Inference is phrased as "most strongly supported" (vs. "must be true" / "properly inferred"), we're allowed to pick the most provable, if there isn't an out-an-out provable answer.

This allows us baby steps away from what the text has literally said.

The first poster explained the reasons why we must eliminate (A) and (B) wonderfully, so I'll just add:

(C) Inez makes no comment as to whether matter and energy are related, so we have no support for (C). She certainly thinks them distinct enough to merit mentioning them separately, but she might nevertheless agree that they are related.

(D) Neither person's comments address the value of the book, just the aptness of the title.

Keep up the good work!